Delhi HC upholds possession decree after defendant fails to prove oral gift claim from brother

Delhi HC dismissed defendant's appeal in possession suit. Trial court correctly rejected defendant's claim that property was orally gifted by his brother, noting this defense was raised only in written statement, not in earlier reply to legal notice. Though HC questioned trial court's reasoning regarding validity of unregistered documents post-2001 amendment, it upheld possession decree as plaintiff, acting as attorney for property owner, had better title than defendant. Owner raised no objection to plaintiff's possession claim. Appeal dismissed without merit.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of oral gift/Hibba by Laiq Ahmed to his brother, the appellant/defendant.
Reliance on unregistered documents by the respondent/plaintiff.

Analysis:

Validity of oral gift/Hibba:
The respondent/plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property based on documents showing purchase from Laiq Ahmed, who allegedly acquired it from Islauddin Safi. The appellant/defendant, Laiq Ahmed's brother, asserted that the property was gifted to him orally in 1997. However, the trial court found the appellant's claim unsubstantiated as it was raised for the first time in the written statement, lacking details of witnesses or circumstances. The court noted the absence of names of witnesses in the appellant's evidence, leading to the dismissal of the gift claim. The High Court concurred with this finding, upholding the trial court's decision.

Reliance on unregistered documents:
The respondent/plaintiff relied on unregistered documents dated 20.2.2008, including an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Will, and Receipt. The appellant/defendant argued that post the enactment of Act 48 of 2001, such documents could not convey property title unless duly stamped and registered. The trial court, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, held the Act as prospective and validated the 2008 documents. The High Court, while questioning this reasoning, affirmed the trial court's decree for possession and mesne profits. It emphasized the respondent/plaintiff's entitlement to possession as an attorney for the owner, Laiq Ahmed, who did not object to the suit. Consequently, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decree for possession and mesne profits in favor of the respondent/plaintiff. The judgment highlighted the lack of merit in the appellant/defendant's arguments regarding the oral gift claim and the validity of unregistered documents, ultimately upholding the respondent/plaintiff's right to possession based on the established legal entitlement.

---